You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Politics’ category.
A widely circulated graph derived from the 2018 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reveals a stark asymmetry in interracial violent crime: Black offenders were perceived by victims to commit violence against Whites at a per capita rate dramatically higher than the reverse. Adjusted for population sizes—Blacks comprising roughly 13% of the U.S. population and Whites about 60%—the offending rate shows Black-on-White violence occurring at approximately 40 times the rate of White-on-Black violence per 100,000 offenders in each group.
This raw per capita disparity explodes the “woke” narrative that portrays racial dynamics in crime as symmetric or driven primarily by White aggression toward minorities. Instead, victim reports indicate that interracial violence flows overwhelmingly in one direction, undermining claims of equivalent racial bias or systemic White-on-Black targeting in everyday criminal acts.Critics often attempt to downplay this by noting that most violent crime is intraracial and that random opportunity—Whites being far more numerous—should lead to more Black-on-White incidents even without disproportionate offending. Adjusting for the larger White victim pool reduces the ratio to around 7:1, which still represents a significant elevation beyond what pure chance would predict.
This adjusted figure accounts for contact opportunities but does not erase the evidence of disproportionate involvement; it simply contextualizes it. The NCVS, based on direct victim perceptions rather than police reports, bypasses potential biases in arrests and provides a clearer picture of actual experiences, further challenging narratives that attribute disparities solely to law enforcement racism.
Ultimately, these statistics dismantle the oversimplified “woke” framing of crime as a tool of White supremacy oppressing minorities. While socioeconomic factors, segregation, and historical inequities contribute to crime patterns, the data show no equivalence in interracial harm—Whites are disproportionately victimized in cross-racial incidents relative to their offending rates. Ignoring per capita realities or dismissing them as misleading sustains a politicized myth that distorts public understanding and policy. Honest engagement with victim-survey evidence demands rejecting narratives that equate vastly unequal patterns, focusing instead on addressing root causes without excusing directional disparities.
For context, a related BJS report comparing NCVS offender data to arrests is here: https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/race-and-ethnicity-violent-crime-offenders-and-arrestees-2018 (and its PDF: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/revcoa18.pdf).
On December 3, 2025, Calgary pastor Derek Reimer was arrested for breaching the conditions of his conditional sentence order after refusing to write a court-mandated letter of apology to a public library manager and members of the LGBTQ+ community. The apology stemmed from his earlier conviction for criminal harassment related to protests against Drag Queen Story Hour events at Calgary libraries in 2023, where he had confronted organizers and posted videos online.
Reimer, citing his sincerely held religious beliefs, argued that complying would constitute compelled speech in violation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms; however, the court deemed his refusal a breach, leading to his immediate detention.At a bail hearing on December 5-6, 2025, no decision was reached on Reimer’s release, and he remains in custody awaiting a further hearing on Tuesday, December 9. The case highlights the extraordinary nature of the original sentencing requirement: court-ordered apologies are rare in Canadian criminal law and typically reserved for restorative justice or defamation contexts, not as a tool to enforce ideological conformity. By jailing a citizen for refusing to express remorse that contradicts his conscience, the justice system effectively punishes thought and belief rather than solely actions, raising serious concerns about state overreach.
This incident exemplifies growing authoritarian tendencies in Canada’s legal approach to dissent on cultural issues, where protections for freedom of expression and religion appear subordinated to enforcing compliance with progressive orthodoxies. Forcing individuals to voice insincere apologies—or face imprisonment—echoes compelled speech regimes in totalitarian systems, undermining the Charter’s guarantees and signaling that the government views certain religious convictions as incompatible with public order. As of December 6, 2025, Reimer’s continued detention without resolution further illustrates how such measures can be used to silence opposition through prolonged pre-trial incarceration.
Here are some reliable sources for readers seeking more details on Pastor Derek Reimer’s case, including the original protests, the court-ordered apology, his December 3, 2025 arrest for non-compliance, and the ongoing bail proceedings as of December 6, 2025:
- Original X post highlighting the case: https://x.com/RealMattA_/status/1997166177433321898 (Quotes journalist Chris Dacey’s update on the bail hearing delay.)
- Video update from the December 6 bail hearing (posted by
@chrisdacey
): https://x.com/chrisdacey/status/1997152423396204956 (Confirms no bail decision was reached and Reimer remains in custody until December 9.)
- Western Standard – Arrest coverage: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/watch-calgary-pastor-arrested-after-refusing-to-apologize-to-librarian/69520 (Includes details on the breach and compelled speech concerns.)
- Rebel News – Breaking arrest report: https://www.rebelnews.com/derek_reimer_arrested_after_refusing_court_ordered_apology (Features video of the arrest and background on the conditional sentence order.)
- Caldron Pool – Analysis of compelled speech: https://caldronpool.com/compelled-speech-canadian-pastor-arrested-for-refusing-to-issue-court-ordered-apology/ (Discusses Charter violations and Reimer’s religious objections.)
- LifeSiteNews – Recent developments: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-pastor-arrested-for-refusing-to-write-apology-to-librarian-who-hosted-drag-queen-story-hour/ (Covers the arrest and broader context of protests against drag events for children.)
– Evidence from the Harper Era in CanadaIn Canadian political discourse, it’s a common trope—often repeated in partisan debates—that “Conservatives hate the poor.” This accusation implies that conservative governments prioritize the wealthy at the expense of low-income families, offering little to no support for those in need. However, a closer look at the record of Stephen Harper’s Conservative government (2006–2015) reveals a different story: a series of targeted policies designed to put more money directly into the pockets of low-income Canadians, working families, and vulnerable groups.
This was powerfully illustrated in a recent X post by user@GreatBig_Sea, which directly refuted the claim in response to another user’s assertion that “Conservatives have always hated the poor and working class.” The post compiled a detailed, evidence-based list of 15 major Harper-era initiatives, backed by official records and Statistics Canada data showing measurable reductions in poverty and low-income rates during that period.Key Harper-Era Policies Supporting Low-Income CanadiansThe Conservative approach emphasized tax relief, direct cash transfers, and incentives to encourage work and family stability—rather than large-scale institutional programs. Here are some highlights from the post:
- Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB, 2006; expanded 2015): Provided $100/month per child under 6 (later $160), plus $60/month for ages 6–17. This universal payment went to all families, delivering $1,200–$1,920 annually per young child to help with living or childcare costs—directly benefiting low-income households without means-testing stigma.
- Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB, 2007; precursor to Canada Workers Benefit): A refundable credit topping up earnings for low-wage workers (up to $1,000 for singles, $2,000 for families), reducing the “welfare wall” and making work more rewarding.
- Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP, 2008): Government matching grants up to 300% plus bonds up to $1,000/year for low-income families with disabled members.
- Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA, 2009): Allowed tax-free growth and withdrawals, helping low-income Canadians build emergency savings.
- Children’s Fitness and Arts Tax Credits (2006–2014 expansions): Up to $500–$1,000 per child, made partially refundable for low-income families.
Other measures included enhanced GST/HST credits, public transit tax credits, caregiver credits, and increased funding for First Nations child welfare. These weren’t trickle-down theories—they were direct transfers and credits that disproportionately aided lower-income groups.Measurable Impact: Poverty and Low-Income Rates DeclinedStatistics Canada data corroborates the effectiveness of these policies:
- Child poverty under the Market Basket Measure (MBM, Canada’s official poverty line since 2018) showed improvement during the Harper years, with overall poverty at 14.5% in 2015 (the benchmark year for federal targets).
- Low-income rates using the after-tax Low Income Measure (LIM-AT) fell from around 13–14% in the mid-2000s to 11.2% by 2015.
- After-tax incomes for the bottom income quintile rose approximately 17% from 2006 to 2015, driven by tax cuts and benefits.
While poverty dropped more sharply after 2015 with the introduction of the Canada Child Benefit (which built on and reformed some Harper-era programs), the Harper government laid groundwork with direct supports that helped stabilize and reduce low-income rates amid the 2008 global recession.Why the Myth Persists—and Why It’s MisleadingCritics often prefer expansive government-run programs (e.g., national daycare) over direct cash to families, viewing the latter as insufficient.
Yet the Harper policies empowered parents to choose how to use the money—whether for childcare, essentials, or work incentives—while avoiding bureaucracy. As one reply to the X post noted, Conservatives focus on growing the economy and providing targeted relief to encourage participation, rather than broad welfare expansion.The original X post (available here: https://x.com/GreatBig_Sea/status/1982121517665137029) serves as a valuable, fact-checked resource in heated debates, reminding us that policy differences aren’t about “hating the poor” but about differing philosophies on how best to help them.
References:
- Original X thread and policy list: https://x.com/GreatBig_Sea/status/1982121517665137029
- Statistics Canada Dimensions of Poverty Hub (MBM and LIM trends): https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/topics-start/poverty
- Government of Canada background on Harper-era family measures: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2015/07/today-parents-get-child-care-payments-harper-government-1003359.html
- Wikipedia summary of Universal Child Care Benefit (with sources): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Child_Benefit
In the end, actions speak louder than slogans. The Harper record shows a commitment to practical support for low-income families—not indifference.
In British Columbia, a dangerous woke ideology masquerading as “reconciliation” is being weaponized by Premier David Eby and his inner circle to dismantle the foundations of Canadian society. As Caroline Elliott reveals in her piercing National Post opinion piece, Eby’s advisors—figures like Doug White and Dr. Roshan Danesh—promote a worldview that treats Canada’s formation as an “original sin” demanding atonement through “turbulent transition,” “rupture,” “sacrifice,” and the “utter transformation of human affairs.” This is not benign progressivism; it is extremist zealotry that views Western civilization as inherently oppressive, requiring painful societal upheaval to achieve absolution.
By framing non-Indigenous Canadians as “settlers,” “colonizers,” or “uninvited guests,” these ideologues sow division and guilt, paving the way for the erosion of property rights, economic stability, and democratic norms.
At the heart of this agenda lies the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), which mandates aligning B.C. laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including taking “all measures necessary” to enforce it. Elliott highlights how this has led to precedents like the Haida agreement, which recognizes Aboriginal title over private property for the first time, and the B.C. Supreme Court’s Cowichan decision, creating profound uncertainty for landowners. Advisors like Danesh explicitly link this to colonialism’s “domino effect,” where ignoring Indigenous title “knocks down much of the foundation for certainty of fee simple property title.” What woke zealots celebrate as justice is, in reality, a calculated assault on private ownership—the bedrock of a free society—turning secure homes and businesses into contested territories subject to Indigenous jurisdiction.
This radical push extends to land-use and resource development, where officials demand Indigenous consent as the “rightful owners,” effectively halting projects and ceding control over vast public lands. NDP figures like Spencer Chandra Herbert and Christine Boyle openly advocate for the “LandBack” movement, criticizing government ownership and calling for jurisdiction to be handed over to Indigenous groups. Elliott quotes the advisors’ chilling vision of reconciliation as a “coming of age” process that renders “widely accepted practices and conventions, cherished attitudes and habits… one by one being rendered obsolete.” Such language betrays the true intent: not coexistence, but the deliberate obsolescence of Canadian traditions, values, and economic prosperity in favor of a reorganized society built on perpetual atonement.
The consequences of this woke extremism are already manifesting in an “ungovernable province,” where economic devastation looms from blocked development, property values plummet amid title uncertainty, and social cohesion fractures under the weight of imposed guilt. By prioritizing ideological purity over the public interest, Eby’s government treats disagreement as complicity in oppression, dismissing concerns as veiled racism. This is the hallmark of authoritarian zealotry: silencing opposition while pursuing a transformative agenda that benefits a narrow elite of activists and bureaucrats at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Ultimately, British Columbia’s radical reconciliation agenda exemplifies how woke ideology seeks the destruction of society as we know it—replacing merit, individuality, and rule of law with collective guilt, tribalism, and state-enforced rupture. If unchecked, this precedent will spread, undermining Canada’s sovereignty and prosperity nationwide. True reconciliation requires mutual respect and practical solutions, not the painful demolition demanded by these extremists. Citizens must resist this zealotry before the foundations of our civilized order are irrevocably shattered.
Bill C-9, officially titled the Combatting Hate Act and introduced in September 2025, amends the Criminal Code to address rising hate crimes by creating new offences, codifying a definition of “hatred,” and streamlining prosecutions. Key provisions include a new hate-motivated crime offence applicable to any Criminal Code violation (potentially carrying enhanced penalties, including life imprisonment in severe cases), criminalizing the willful promotion of hatred through public display of certain hate or terrorism symbols, and removing the requirement for Attorney General consent in hate propaganda cases. The bill also introduces offences for intimidating or obstructing access to places of worship, schools, or community centres used by identifiable groups. While presented as a response to increased antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other hatreds, critics argue it expands state power over expression in ways that threaten fundamental freedoms.
A particularly alarming development is the proposed amendment—supported by the Liberals in a deal with the Bloc Québécois—to repeal section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code. This longstanding defence protects individuals from conviction for wilfully promoting hatred if, in good faith, they express an opinion on a religious subject or based on a religious text. Removing it would expose pastors, priests, imams, and everyday believers to prosecution for faithfully teaching or quoting sacred scriptures on contentious issues like marriage, sexuality, or morality. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has warned that this risks criminalizing core religious doctrine, disproportionately targeting Christianity’s traditional teachings while undermining freedom of religion under the Charter.
Beyond religious discrimination, Bill C-9 erodes cognitive liberty—the right to hold and express unpopular thoughts without fear of state punishment—and free speech more broadly. By codifying a definition of “hatred” as detestation or vilification (explicitly stating it does not include mere dislike, disdain, or offence), the bill arguably lowers the high bar set by Supreme Court precedents like R. v. Keegstra and Whatcott, potentially chilling debate on public issues. Removing Attorney General oversight for prosecutions invites politically motivated charges, while broad new offences around symbols and obstruction could capture peaceful protest or artistic expression, despite carve-outs for legitimate purposes like education or journalism.
This bill exemplifies a broader authoritarian drift in Canada, where the state increasingly polices thought and belief under the guise of combating hate. Existing laws already prohibit incitement to violence and genuine hate propaganda; expanding them risks turning disagreement into crime and faith into liability. Cognitive liberty demands that Canadians can think, speak, and worship freely, even when offensive to others—yet Bill C-9 subordinates these rights to subjective interpretations of “hatred.”
As Parliament debates this legislation amid reports of a Liberal-Bloc agreement to strip religious protections, citizens must demand its rejection or substantial amendment. True tolerance protects unpopular speech, including religious conviction; suppressing it paves the way for tyranny. Canada’s Charter promises freedom of conscience, religion, thought, and expression—Bill C-9 puts them all at grave risk.
References
- Official text of Bill C-9: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-9/first-reading
- Department of Justice summary: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/c9/index.html
- Charter Statement on Bill C-9: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c9_2.html
- Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on religious exemption removal (December 2025): https://www.cccb.ca/media-release/proposed-restrictions-on-religious-freedom-bill-c-9/
- CBC News on Bloc-Liberal deal to remove religious defence (December 2025): https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c9-hate-speech-religion-9.7001891
- National Post on implications for faith (December 2025): https://nationalpost.com/opinion/changes-to-bill-c-9-arent-combating-hate-theyre-criminalizing-faith
- LEGISinfo page for Bill C-9: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-9
- Canadian Civil Liberties Association concerns: https://ccla.org/press-release/ccla-bill-c-9-risks-criminalizing-peaceful-protest/
Alberta’s Bill 13, the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, marks one of the most significant free-expression protections introduced in Canada in a generation. In a political climate where professional regulators increasingly police personal beliefs, Alberta has drawn a constitutional line: no regulator has the right to punish lawful off-duty expression or enforce ideological conformity.
For a country grappling with expanding limits on acceptable speech, Bill 13 is a clear statement that cognitive liberty still matters — and must be defended.
Protecting the Mind from Institutional Overreach
The bill’s core principle is simple:
regulated professionals — doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, engineers — do not surrender their freedom of thought or expression when they obtain a license.
Bill 13 therefore prohibits regulatory bodies from disciplining professionals for their lawful off-duty expressive conduct. The definition is broad by design:
any communication or symbolic act that expresses meaning is protected, unless it involves real harm such as violence, criminal acts, abuse of professional power, or sexual misconduct.
This is precisely the line a free society should defend. Regulators must ensure competence — not enforce an ideological worldview.
The “Peterson Law”: A Necessary Rebalance
Bill 13 responds directly to cases like that of Jordan Peterson, whose regulator attempted to discipline him for personal political commentary made outside his clinical practice. Whatever one thinks of Peterson, the precedent was dangerous: it implied that professionals serve at the pleasure of ideological censors.
Bill 13 rejects this entirely.
It enshrines a foundational principle:
Your license does not give the state ownership of your mind.
In a country where social and professional pressures increasingly enforce narrow orthodoxies, this is an overdue correction.
Ending Ideological Compulsion in Professional Licensing
The bill also prohibits mandatory ideological training unless it directly relates to professional competence or ethics. This includes DEI, unconscious-bias modules, or cultural-competency courses whose content extends beyond verifiable job requirements.
This is not a rejection of diversity or ethics. It is a rejection of the assumption that the state can compel belief — or force professionals to internalize political frameworks as a condition of employment.
Canada has drifted toward a model where ideological education is treated as neutral truth. Bill 13 restores the older liberal idea:
the state regulates conduct, not thought.
Reaffirming Charter Principles the Rest of Canada Left Behind
Bill 13 strengthens the role of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Alberta’s Bill of Rights in appeals. Regulators must now justify any intrusion on expression using a correctness standard, not deferential rubber-stamping.
In effect, Alberta is telling professional bodies:
If you are going to infringe expression, you must prove it is justified — and most ideological policing won’t survive that scrutiny.
This is how constitutional societies are supposed to operate.
A Model for a Canada That Has Lost Confidence in Its Own Freedoms
Critics warn of dangers. But these warnings always elide the key truth:
Bill 13 does not protect threats, criminality, hate-motivated harassment, or abuse of professional power.
It protects speech — not harm.
It protects thought — not misconduct.
It protects dissent — not danger.
And this is urgently needed. Across Canada, cognitive liberty is narrowing. Professionals face whispered threats, social pressure, licensing consequences, reputational ruin, and ideological gatekeeping for expressing legitimate political or social views. The boundary between professional standards and ideological enforcement has blurred.
Bill 13 restores that boundary with clarity and force.
Verdict: Alberta Is Right — and Other Provinces Should Follow
Alberta’s bill is a principled pushback against a creeping culture of compelled ideology. It marks a return to classical liberalism, where the right to think and speak freely is not contingent on political fashion.
By affirming that professionals retain sovereignty over their own minds, Bill 13 sets a vital precedent for the rest of Canada.
At a time when our freedoms feel increasingly conditional, Alberta has chosen to defend them.
For those who still believe in free speech, open debate, and the inviolability of conscience should celebrate when this bill is passed.
The Stoics taught that excess corrupts both the soul and the body politic. Seneca warned that chasing boundless expansion courts ruin — true prosperity lies not in defiance of limits, but in living in accordance with nature’s measure. Marcus Aurelius similarly counseled restraint, urging us to act within the bounds of reason and accept the limits placed upon us. Applied to governance, this means a nation — like an individual — must assess its capacities before inviting more mouths to the table.
Canada’s recent immigration trajectory betrayed this principle. In 2023, the country added more than 1.27 million people — an annual growth rate of roughly 3.2 percent, driven overwhelmingly by international migration. (Statistics Canada) Over just a few years, the population climbed from under 39 million to over 41 million.
For years, permanent-resident targets hovered near 500,000, and temporary resident classes — students, workers, etc. — swelled. By 2025, however, disturbing strains were showing: housing shortages, rent and price inflation, pressure on health services, and signs of wage stress.
These were not speculative risks. Empirical analyses from bodies such as the Bank of Canada and CMHC correlate rapid population inflows with housing-market pressure. Public opinion followed suit. By late 2025, polling indicated that nearly two-thirds of Canadians considered even the then-reduced target for permanent residents (395,000) too high; roughly half held consistently negative views on immigration, not out of xenophobia, but from perceived stress on infrastructure and housing.
Recognizing this, Ottawa has begun to recalibrate. In its 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan, released publicly, the government committed to 395,000 permanent residents in 2025, then reducing to 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027. (Canada) Even more significantly, temporary resident targets dropped: from 673,650 new TRs in 2025 to 516,600 in 2026, with further moderation planned. (Canada)
The demographic effects are already materializing. As of mid-2025, Canada’s estimated population growth slowed to 0.9 percent year-over-year, according to RBC Economics, with non-permanent residents making up a smaller share. (RBC) This slowdown itself validates the Stoic critique of overreach — a moment of reckoning for policy driven by expansion rather than equilibrium.
This retreat is welcome, but it remains reactive. From a Stoic perspective, reactive virtue is still virtue, but prudence demands more: a wisdom that designs policy proactively, not merely corrects after crisis. A Stoic polity would have matched immigration flows to real, measurable capacity long ago — gauging housing pipelines, healthcare strain, wage effects, and social cohesion.
Immigration in moderation enriches: it brings talent, innovation, and human flourishing. But unmoored from institutional capacity, it sows fragility, inequality, and resentment.
Going forward, Canada needs to institutionalize sophrosyne — the classical virtue of temperance and self-mastery. Targets should be set not by political fantasy or corporate lobbying, but by clear metrics: housing completions, per-capita infrastructure strain, healthcare wait-lists, and social stability.
The recent dialing back is a start. But true Stoic governance demands that moderation becomes a structural norm, not just a temporary correction. Only then can the polity live in accord with nature — virtuous, resilient, and enduring.
References
- Government of Canada, 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan. Permanent resident targets: 395,000 (2025), 380,000 (2026), 365,000 (2027). (Canada)
- Canada.ca, Government of Canada reduces immigration. Temporary resident reductions, projected decline in temporary population by 445,901 in 2025. (Canada)
- RBC Economics, Canada’s population growth slows… — mid-2025 year-over-year growth of 0.9%, share of non-permanent residents falling. (RBC)
- Statistics Canada, Population estimates, Q4 2024. International migration accounted for 98.5% of growth in Q4 2024. (Statistics Canada)
- CIC News, 2026-2028 Immigration Levels Plan will include new measures… — TR targets for 2026: 385,000 quoted, among other reductions. (CIC News)
- CIBC Thought Leadership, Population-growth projections… — analysis of visa expiry, outflows, and the challenge of non-permanent resident accounting. (cms.thoughtleadership.cibc.com)
Glossary of Key Terms
| Term | Meaning / Explanation |
|---|---|
| Sophrosyne | A classical Greek virtue (especially important to Stoics): moderation, temperance, self-control, and harmony with nature. In this context, it means setting immigration policy in proportion to real capacity. |
| Non-Permanent Resident (NPR) | Individuals in Canada on temporary visas: students, temporary foreign workers, etc. Not permanent residents or citizens. |
| Permanent Resident (PR) | Someone who has been granted permanent residency in Canada: not a citizen yet, but has the right to live and work permanently. |
| Levels Plan / Immigration Levels Plan | The Canadian government’s multi-year plan setting targets for new permanent and temporary immigrant admissions. |
| Absorptive Capacity | The realistic capacity of a country (or region) to accommodate newcomers without undue strain: infrastructure, housing, healthcare, labour market, social services. |
| Reactive Virtue vs. Proactive Wisdom | In Stoic terms: responding wisely after the fact (reactive) is good, but better is anticipating and designing policy with foresight (proactive). |
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…